that the Army are in then by that way of accommodation that the Parliament men were in and therefore it is but their fancy that the liberties of the nation are in danger nay that particular mischeif is not eligible before this inconvenience of giving the inferiours liberty upon their own private conceits to resist and disturb the supreame Indicature of a Common-Wealth Sect. 3. But he adds thirdly p. 31. If there had been no clause in the oathes for the liberties of the Subjoct yet had the Army more then warrant sufficient to stand up for them with out any breach of Covenant for men stand bound by the Law of nature against all other obligation whatsoever Now there is no Law of nature that speaks more plainely then this that the strong ought to stand by the weake in cases of extremity Formerly you made exceptions in the cases of extremity that a man may not lye forsweare himselfe c. Now all bonds must give way to the Law of necessity nor only word bur oath oportet esse memorem Againe I would know of him if the Sheriffe differ in judgement from the Iudge when a case is argued pag. 21. and the Sheriffe thinks might overcomes right and that if the Iudge proceed he undoes or destroyes a poore man and his family Is the Sheriffe having power bound to pluck the Iudge off the Bench or keep him from the Bench rather then suffer him to passe in his conceit an unjust sentence tending to extremity For what hee adds touching the intention of the Covenant makers and Covenant takers I referre me to his conscience whether though they did not intend the Covenant to binde to things against the Law of nature yet that they intended that they themselves should be ultimate judges what was for the publique weale of the Kingdom and so not against the Law of nature what not and you know the old rule quacunque arte verborum quis jurat c. whatsoever art of words are used in the oath the oath is to be interpreted according to his sense that gives it not his that takes it But next he tels us that this act of the Army in the dissociation of the Parliament doth not give the least colour or shadows to the act of the Kings breaking into their House and demanding which and how many of their Members he pleased to be sacraficed upon the sorâ—â—ice of his will But I answer 1. The act of the King is falsely and uncharitably that I say not maliciously represented by him for the King did not break into the House of Commons as he mouthes it but had admission there which of right he may claime in either House of Parliament upon occasion nor did he demand the Members to be sacrificed to his owne will his words were fayrer to have them legally tryed touching some things which he had to lay to their charge what was in his heart you know not Now compare the act of the Army to this of the King and see whether there be not only some colour but according to our English Proverbe whether they have not made the King a Saint 1. The King demanded but five of the Commons Members they imprisoned above forty and secluded as they say above an hundred Secondly the King took none out nor can any man tell what he would have done had they been there reason might have qualified him They did not onely violently inhibit many but as I am informed by Master Stevens himselfe he and Collonell Birch were puld out of the House Thirdly the King was the supream Magistrate they clothed with no authority Fourthly the King pretended a legall tryall they have no legall objection against them Fifthly The King confesseth Parliaments should be free Collect. â— Declar. p. 37. and one of his objections against the five members of Parliament was that by tumults they hindered the freedome of Parliament and you affirme tumultuous ingagements have as much hindered freedom of Parliament this two years Article â— as the forcible act of the Army Sixthly the King was easily reduc'd from his errour and relinquisht it and assured them of tendernesse of priviledge for future you avow the Armies act and they persist in their soree Now who is the greater transgressour thus far Neither did the King as you say look upon the accused Members as the greatest Patrons of the Kingdoms interest but under the notion of such as fought to alter the well tempered government of it as he erred in his apprehensions so doe you now in your conceits of the Parliament men restrayned Nor was the pretence of the King ' to advance the wil and power of one against the peace and comfort of many but to preserve the government as it stood free from alteration which was in the judgement of any uninteressed farre more for the benefit of this Nation then the new modell of your fancy wittily by Sedgewick termed All breech which if it take will make us a base and in all likelihood ere long a broken Kingdom But if the King under faire pretences did intend as you hint tyranny may it not as well be objected to you that you intend Oligarchy It 's therefore cleer as the light thaâ— as the King did ill the Army did worse and the Declaration of that House against the Kings act doth militate as strongly against the act of the Army which declares the arresting of any Member of Parliament without a legall proceeding and consent of that House whereof he is a Member a breach of previledge Câ—ll of Remonst Decla c. pag. 39. and the preson that shall arrest any such Member is declared an enemye of State CHAP. IV. Sect. 1. Master Goodwin proceeds to a fourth Objection To prove the Armies Act unjustifiable because against the Law of the Land which should rightly be framed thus WHosoever being under law and sworn to maintaine the Law or legall Priviledges of others doe against Law or legall Priviledge imprison the Persons of others are guilty of an act of impious transgression The Army being under Law and sworn to maintaine the legall Priviledges of others yet against Law and legall Priviledges have imprison'd the Persons of others Therefore by that act of theirs they have made themselves guilty of impious transgression That imprisonment of the Members is against Law and legall priviledge is clear for the Law is That no free man shall be imprisoned without due processe in Law And the greater the person the greater is the presumption in the oppression of them Master Goodw. To this First Sums up his Answers alread given to this Objection which have had their Answers in their places He addes Pag. 33. That we may charitably suppose that there is no Law prohibiting any sort of men from being benefactors to the Publike especially from preserving the Publike Liberties when they stand in extremâ tegulâ Ans How false this supposition is in the Armies case to
indignisint qui eo sunt evecti By that name of powers they are tropidully understood which are lacâ—d in those dignities that we â—ay know this subjection is to be given to the Powers though they are unworthy that are advanc'd to them Besides all that can be hinted in the name of Powers so often used is but according to the distinction between the will Authority of the Magistrate for conscience sake further then it is cloathed with Power that is legally and that is plainly the inraning of Pareus cited by you He names Powers rather then Kings and Princes for in the persons vices 〈◊〉 causes of disobedience are found therefore he would have the Powers different from the persons That is their corruptions will put them on to seek to have their will a Law their Power extends no farther then Law nor further are wee bound to obey But what need we stand upon this terme any longer sith S. Peter expresly mentioneth the persons both of the King as Supreame and all that are in Authoty under him Therefore Mr Goodw. without just ground Limits the subjection to Magistrates only while they act regularly and with a single eye on procurement of Good Though I doubt not but our Parliament men feised for endeavouring agreement with King were both regular in their way and aimes I may conclude therefore for all Mr Goodwins sleek Apology the Armies forcible Act upon the Parliament stands convict of grievous guilt and yet we see the old adage â—â—ue Durum telum necessitas for behold that Army that hath so often prevailed against the sharped weapons of their Enemies fallen and expiring in their honours vanquisht by this one poore dart of preâ—ended necessity And yet this Act of theirs that is so unwarrantable in it selfe is made much more abominable by the intention of it which the issue discovers for its evident it was to make a Party to proceed to the deposition and destruction of the King if God prevent them not A thing directly contrary to their sworn Allegeance to the Doctrine of the Church of England to which they are also engaged by Protestation to the constant Profession of the Parliament in generall their partakers in their Apologeticall Declarations and * Amongst whâ—â—â— Mister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Anti cavalierisme hath spo 〈◊〉 as plain and sensibly as any That it is a just Prerogative of Persons of Kings to be secure from the violence of men in what causes soever and their lives to be as consecrated corn meet to bee reaped and gathered onely by the hand of God himselfe with other words which may be seen 〈…〉 sent unto him by a learned godly and â—orthy Knight Sir â—ra Netheâ—sole Books whereby they engaged many people in their quarrell who will now detest the present Act the more because they have been made somewhat to contribute to it by the former hypocrifie and present treachery of others And this also heightens the injury of the Armies Act that they should exclude the Trustees of so many Shieres Cities and Burroughes when a thing of so great a concernment to them as the life of their King is to come in question is this justice If their Trustees be degenerate should they not have leave and time to have chosen other before such a matter had been taken in hand For that of Aquinas you cited to no purpose pag. 15. will not take place here neither for you confesse their choyce was good but the men are degenerate I may therefore conclude little reason had Mr Goodwin to conclude his Book with such hyperbolicall that I say not blasphemous flattery as to compare so sinfull an Act of the Army to the sufferings of Jesus Christ to save a lost world c. But the conclusion sutes with the premises both Popish for its the manner of Papists to extoll their assassinates so they doe it with a good intent adificandicausa and in case of necessity to save the lives or prevent the ruines of many Catholiks And I now seriously propose it to Mr Goodwin and his Associates Whether the necâ—ssity harpt upon be any other then danger to a sort of people in the land that out of pretended new Light would live exempt from the ordinary and received rules of Government Danger I say to such lest they should meet with trouble loose those preferments and that Ruledome that they draw and many times usurpt to themselves in Parliament City Countrey by the Power of the sword intrusted to more Publike ends If this be the necessity as there be hints many that it is How much more suteable were it for men of conscience not to disturb the Treaty for Peace but interpose in it for their own Interest And if they think exemption from the coercieve Power of the civill sword in matters of Religion be a native Liberty of Christians Let them desire it may be debated freely before a free Parliament and if we convince not the impiety and iniquity of it let them carry it If they fall short in that yet whatever indulgence may bee consistent with duty to Truth and the peace of the Church will never be denyed them Oh! did any relenting appeare to procure return from those irregular wayes how would all godly hearts imbrace them with joy looking on them in their irregularities past as men under a strong tentation and with consideration that they also may be tempted But if they bee resolved that what they have usurpt they will hold I hope I shall noâ— I am sure I need not envie their slippery places for when they have done Gods whole work on those under their opprâ—ssive power I am confident God will visit the fruit of the great hearts of this aspiring Faction and the glory of their high looks DEO GLORIA FINIS
Right The PREFACE THe foulest actions alwayes borrow fair pretences If the Devill did not transforme himself into an Angel of light who would be seduced by him Hence those that would overthrow all or usurpe authority themselves have alwayes pretended though seldom or never promoted publike weal or liberty and dub'd those Magistrates Tyrants whom they meant to oppresse to still their own consciences if they be not arrived at past feeling and to blear the eyes of those who bear an awfull respect to that ordinance of God Authority And never were there any pretenders so far out of reason but they had some Lawyers to justifie their proceedings in foro humane and some Divines to plead their warrant from holy writ For amongst multitudes either through want of wit or honesty there have alwayes been found abettours to a prevailing faction Of all the exorbitances that ever were committed against men in authority I know to paralell all circumstances considered to that late one of the Army towards the Members of the House of Commons violently secluded or forcibly restrained by the intrusted power of a few from discharging their trust committed to them by severall whole Shires and Burroughes And yet behold a Divine of note with much confidence pleading their cause to be so equitable as though it were not to be stumbled at by any not profoundly ignorant either of the evill of oppression or the unquestionable means of shaking it off But confidence in a dubious case doth argue either great shallownesse or deep prejudice arising either from doteing affection or unworthy interest What hath dazeled the eyes of this Champion of the Army I know not But in reading I have observed it him what I have often in other controversies in others That men of strong reason in maintaining erours have showed themselves so irrationall that a man would wonder that they that are so acute where they preach or defend truth should discover such weaknesse in the patronage of errour But he that gives the gift may well blast it when he sees it turn'd against himself Now that we may not accuse only as he hath done the Parliament Members but make good the errour objected let us take into consideration what he hath said to the controversie in hand CHAP. I. ANd here first of all the question must be rightly stated or else there can be no accurate reasoning but we shall ever and anon fall into the fallacy ex ignoratione E'lugchi Now the case I conceive may be thus impartially stated This Kingdom having bin long imbroyied in an unnaturall consuming war through a misunderstanding between the King Parliament The King at last fell into the Parliaments power all his strength being broken by them While the King is in this condition after many other overtures uselesse and experience of the discontent of the Nation both for want of settlement and the sad condition of their King There is set on foot a personall Treaty with the King In which the Parliament demand of him concession and confirmation of such priviledges as from the beginning they thought conducible to render this people free and happy and were the summe of all that had been formerly demanded in any of their other treaties or proposals or had been held forth in their Declarations as the scope of their undertakings To this Treaty the far Major part of the House of Commons agreed that willingly yea so far were they from being forct to it as it pretended by petitions that neither the impetuousness of petitions from people nor fear of souldiers pistols could make them relinquish it for they were satisfied in their consciences that it was the fairest justest most probable way to promote and settle the peace weal of a distressed Kingdom so this Treaty is prosecuted till its very neer an happy conclusion The Army raised by and deriving their millitary power from the Houses dislike this Treaty suppose it would indanger them a godly party in the land so they stile their adherents This their judgment they remostrate to the house of Commons The house not convinc'd by their reasons nor dismayd at their power laid aside their Remonstrance hold on the Treaty vote the Kings concessions to contain matter for a well grounded peace hereupon the Army beset the passages to the House of Commons take above forty of the Members of Parliament into safe custody and violently keep or fright a major part out of the House debarring them liberty of sitting and voting there This action of the Army Mr. John Goodwin undertakes to defend under the title of garbling the Parliament And I yet beleeve pag. 2. that it was a most irregular and scandalous usurpation destructive to Parliaments and so to the welbeing of this Kingdom if not to the present ruine of it unlesse it be retracted by the actors And this I here undertake to make good against Mr. John Goodwin by making good those arguments which he would overthrow and enlarging them as occasion is offered Sect. 2. The first argument which he incleavours to answer is pag. 3. From the Armies acting without sufficient authority and so transgressing that law which commands every man to keep order and within the compasse of his calling And this he stiles the first born of our strength And you shall see that it is indeed like Moses a goodly child if you view him in his right and full proportion in mood and figure thus All exercise of jurisdiction where neither by God or man we are clothed with authority is usurpation breach of order injurious and so greatly sinfull The Army in inhibiting the Members entrance into their House of Councell and more grossly in imprisoning their persons did exercise jurisdiction where they were clothed with noe authority from God or man Therefore The Army in that force upon the Houses stand guilty of usurpation breach of order and injurie to the Members so used and so sinned greatly The Major is undeniable if men will grant there are such things as usurpation disorderly walking and injury or that those are sinfull where ever they be For what is usurpation if this be not for men to exercise jurisdiction over them who are not under their authority nay to whose authority they are subject What is breach of ranke and order if this be not for men that are under authority to usurpe authority without a call And what is injury if this be not to be haled to prison by those that are neither authoritative judges of my fact nor have any superiority over my person and that only for acting according to the dictates of my conscience And are not such abuses grosly sinfull that doe as it were make void the fifth Commandment and destroy Government And for the Minor first its clear that the Army did exercise jurisdiction over the Members for suspension from office and commitment are high acts of jurisdiction And if the Army were clothed with any authority
be supposed that by their Commission they were limited to judge only those enemies who were in Arms with the King and his partakers Those Parliament-men whom they have excluded have notoriously discovered themselves to be men of this engagement But was ever any accusation more unjust or senseless Did not they in the Treaty hold the King so hard to it as to justifie them and the Army in the war to the vertual condemning of himself and his And to grant all for which they ingaged against him and his party And can they for this be traduc'd as apparently friends and abettors of that party But he comes on with a third answer Page 4 5. That if the Parliaments call were warrantable to levy Forces against the King and his party then was the Armies call to act in the businesse under Debatâ— warrantable likewise But this consequence is very weak for the Parliament is the supreme Court and Councel in the Kingdom and in your apprehension I beleeve the supreme authority who were indeed called to that Trust by the people but being by their call made members of Parliament they became clothed with authority to consult and provide mâ—ans for the safety of themselves and the Nation according to the Laws and Constitutions of it And so issued out Commissions c. but this as private men they could not do But now the Army was not by any Commission clothed with any authority over the Parliament And therefore they cannot justifie their actings against the Parliament over whom they had no authority by what the Parliament did having so great authority yea in the conceit of our new Lords the greatest authority in the Land But he argues further Page 5 6. That if the Parliament-men by being made Parliament-men had formally and really power to raise an Army then that Army hath power to act whatsoever lies within the verge of their Commission c. This is not doubted But the thing which we doubt and deny is That the tenor of their Commission should be by strong hand to suppress all that by rationall grounds they should judg enemies of the peace of the Kingdom without dependance on Parliamentary judgment for they were as raised so to be regulated by the Parliament in their proceedings The power of judging being reserved in the Parliament The power of executing committed to the Army especially in case of doubt or difference Never would never did any State raise an Army on other terms unles they meant to make them Lords not Servants For who is likely to be more skilful in judging what is conducible to peace and publick weal A Councel of War or a Councel of State Therefore its clear that the Army in assuming power to judg their raisers authoritatively and so using force against them have exceeded the bounds of their Commission falsifyed trust and are injurious usurpers on the Parliament men Sect. 5. But he raiseth an Objection That it is not likely that the Parliament would give Commission to act against themselves He answers pag. 6. 1 That Law-givers when in their righe mindes may give out Laws against mad men which may be put in execution against themselves when they become mad And in case any of the Parliament men from whom the Commission issued had turned Cavaliers c. But this is a wilde answer for the excluded Parliament-men are in the same way and in the same principles in which they first gave out Commissions that is to have the King home separated from his evil Counsellors that his Throne might be establish'd in righteousness Therefore to argue That because their Commission might have been used against them if they had left the Body that gave it and united with the Kings party that Now it may be so used when they continue in Parliament and act on the same principles on which they issued out the Commissions is as poor a come off as could be expected from the weakest Sophister Nor hath his 2 Answer any more strength where he affirms That what one * Traiane Emperor spake expresly to an inferior Officer is said implicitly to al inferior Officers by their superiors to use the power they have for them if they rule well against them if they rule ill pag. 6.7 for they are also for the punishment of evil-doers and that without partiality And S. Peter requires submission not only to the King as supreme but unto governors sent by him for the punishment of evil doers But first if there were nothing peculiar in that saying of Trajane why is it so often mentioned of him as a note of eminency and honor Again though inferior officers should use their power and be respected in the use of it yet they must also remember their limits A Justice of Peace hath power but it is with limits in regard of place which if he exceed though his act be never so just he usurps and is punishable And so is he limited also in regard of persons Subordinate Magistrates are to govern to be obeyed by those under them but they are to be governed by the powers above them and not exercise authority over them for their Commission extends not so far Though we are to be subject to subordinate Magistrates yet in case of opinion of wrong we may appeal from them as Paul to Caesar which shews the supreme Magistrate is to censure their Sentences not they his You might have spared that Scripture which here you too lightly bring in that in this Armies Commission there cannot be pretence for that exception which is in that of Christ 1 Cor. 15.27 But when he saith all things are put under him it is manifest that he is exempted that did put all things under him God the Father being incapable of sin For though the superiour magistrate is not exempt from sin yet is he excepted out of the Commission of the inferiour Magistrate because his superiour in Magistracie and Par in Parem much lesse inferior in superiorem in codem genere non habet potestatem equall hath no authority over his equall much lesse the inferiour over the superiour in the same kind especially where the supreme Magistrate thinkes he doth well for whose judgement shall controll shall the inferiours controll the superiour Neither doth Mr. Prinne or any judicious Divine that I know affirm that any other inferiour Magistrates but the representatives of a Kingdom shall take order with the restraining of Tyrants or if any inferiour Magistrate may do it yet they and the representatives are to proceed by taking order with their ministers which are under the penalties of the law and within the verge of authority And there is no usurpation in this when penalties are inflicted on them that are under jurisdiction But he adds If the Army had not so for mall a call as the Parliament yet had they a call as materiall for the one had it from the persons of the people and the other
from the peoples liberties yea and lives many of their lives being now laid upon the altar c. what a loud untruth is here in matter of fact whose lives were on the alter Or what better security could the Parliament devise Then first to be justified by Act of Parliament and secondly to be secured from violence by the command of the militia Again what palpable weaknesse is here in matter of argument to compare the calls of men to their votes with reall calls of their miseries and these too most in their own fancies for the major part of people apprehend no such thing and so their gronâ—s call not who knows not that personall call by votes clothes with authority gives jurisdiction and enables to order others But sight of miseries gives a man no authority to command onely calls him to put forth that power he hath to help Lastly he affirms incase of extream necessity Aquinas q. 32. Art 7. all things are common and so callings for this he cites a Popish writer a fit patron for a false position for if this be true here is no theft in extreme need when a man must dye to feed on another mans store it is no theft But this is against the Scriptures making a difference indeed between him that steales presumtuously and him that steales for need the one deserving pitty but is a theif still and must restore though it be to all his substance Prov. 6 30 31. ‖ So Augustine in Psalm 73. Pauper mendicus furtum facit ex macie processit iniquitas And Cicero is of the same judgement that a good man must famish rather then steale lib. 3. Off. * Nonne igitur sapiens si fame ipse conficiatur abstulerit cibum alteri ad nullam rem utili Minimè vero non enim mihi est vita mea utilior quam animi mei talis affectus neminem ut violem commodi mei gratia wherein he speaketh to the shame of Papists and all that symbolize with them To the example of David I have answered already for what he cites out of Polanus That when eclesiasticks are negligent Laickes may reforme It s just nothing to his purpose for who knows not that Polanus and other Protestant Divines hold the reformation of the eclesiasticall estate to be within the verge of a magistrates call But will Polanus or Mr. Goodwin say that a magistrate in case of defect without any other call may administer the Sacraments could necessity excuse Vzzah Therefore this pretended community in case of necessity is a Popish device and a figleafe too narrow He closeth his answer with a similitude of his owne which he amplifies out of Master Prin Pag. 9.10 Where he supposeth the Pilot of a Ship drunke or mad and the Ship running on quick-sands c. In such a case may not any man or inen Act as a Pilat which others stand bound at the perill of their lives in this case to obey But first similitudes are better for illustrations then proofes Secondly They prove nothing at all unlesse there be parity betweene the example and the thing exemplified Whereas here is the greatest disparitie For if this similitude cleare the Armie it must suppose the Parliament-men drunke or mad whereas indeed they that accuse them labour of somewhat proportionable to these diseases But let the case be put thus The Master of the Ship is according to his place ablest to guide the Ship and he according to his best skill directs such a course and accordingly gives out commands The Master Gunner presumes he can steere a safer course and thereupon by the helpe of his under-officers awes and forcibly seizeth the Pilot and so takes his owne way Is not the Gunner here guistle of usurpation and disobedience Just so stands the case between the Parliament and the Army The Parliament are best able to judge for they are the Councell of State and have most right to guide the Ship of the common-wealth for they have the Superior Authoritie But the Souldiers command the Guns and they propose another way which though lookt upon as most dangerous by the skilfull Pilots yet by force all are secluded that will not run their way Is not this usurpation in the Souldier and dangerous not safe to publique weale In case of difference in judgements whose sentence shall controll Shall the sons judgement controll the fathers or the servants his Masters no more ought inferiours Magistrate controll the Superiours The Armie therefore should obey not prâ—scribe to the Parliament in things dubious especially such as are of Civill not Martiall cognizance But because the exception that Master Goodwin all along supposeth is That the Parliament Members restrained are drunke or mad civilly or have turned back on trust and there is much depends on this I will here once for all lay downe grounds to cleare it That the Parliament-men restrained are in reference to the Souldiery sober in their right wits and true to trust and that the contrary errours rest among their oppressors As first I argue thus Sect. 6. Those that keepe to their Principles Professions and Declarations made when they are confest to be sober in their right wits and true to trvst must needs be judged to be so still The Parliament men who indeavour the setling of the King and Kingdome upon his large Concessions keepe to their principle Declarations and Professions Ergo They are to be judged sober in their wits and faithfull to trust The Major is manifest for constancy in Principles and wayes is the greatest evidence of sobriety and faithfulnesse A double-minded man a drunken man a frantick man is unstable in all his wayes The Minor is undeniable which may be seene by every one in the Record of their Principles Declarations and Professions in the Booke called The exact collections printed long since by the Parliaments appointment and in other Summaries of them And if the Members be soher in their wits and true to trust their opposites are under the evils contrary to these vertues For Contrarioram contraria sunt praedicata Secondly Those that proceed in a way to which they stand ingaged by divers solemne and religious bonds they are sober in their wits and true to trust The oppressed Members proceeded in a way to which they stood ingaged by many solemne and religious Bonds therefore they are sober c. The Major is not to be doubted of unlesse we be like Felix and think much Religion or Learning makes mad The Minor is as evident for the Oathes of Allegiance Supremacy Protestation the Nationall Covenant are all sacred and solemne Bonds and all ingage to preserve the Kings Honour Safety and Greatnesse at least upon such Concessions as these granted by him Therefore the conclusion is undeniable and the blame must rest on their Oppressors but the oppressed Members are free Thirdly They that walke in a way suitable to the Religion that they professe and after
oblique and some more direct glances at the Religion and integrity of the secluded Members I will make him this offer That if the secluded Members be not as free from raysing advantage during the late troubles and have not given as good satisfaction to the World both of their knowledge integrity and affection to Religion as so many chuse them where they can of the same trust that approve of their necessity let them carry the cause among men But if not their pretended necessity is not like to be the genuine issue of a faithfull brain and heart CHAP. 3. Sect. 1. Mr. Goodwin proceedes to a third Objection from the Covenant he might have added the Protestation made May the 5. 1641. which was taken more generally from which I present the argument thus formed EVery act contrary to any one or more solemne ingagements made to God is lawfull and impious the Act of the Army seizing the members of Parliament is contrary to one or more solemne ingagements made to God Therefore that act was unlawfull and impious The Minor is cleare for in the protestation May 1641. This is one clause to defend their power and priviledge of Parliament Now what more unquestionable priviledge of Parliament then this to have free a ccesse to the House and there to vote according to their consciences pag. 27. Mr. Goodwin answer That it is no priviledge of Parliament to act in opposition to the benefit of the Kingdome True but when the qustion is what is for the benefit of the Kingdome it is part of the power of Parliaments which is one thing which you have protested to maintaine to be the finall Judges else broyles and confusion must follow for they shall stand bound together with all of their Judgement to maintaine what they judge so conducible for the Kingdomes wealth and if their Judgements be not determining others may thinke themselves bound by force to oppose them and what can be expected from this but perpetuall broyles But he answers further to a supposed reply That this is a priviledge of Parliament for the Members to be free from question without the consent of the House True saith he when a Parliament is taken in a proper signification noting out a company of men not dead to trust But if these be dead to trust then they are not properly a Parliament As he is not a Jewe that is one outwardly c. But who shall Judge them dead to trust They are not to be Judged authoritatively by private persons none such can pronouce them dead neither have they in what they are accused given evidence to be dead to trust but faithfull as I have shewed Againe He that was onely a Jew outwardly was not to be denied the outward priviledge of a Jew by man Though in Gods account he was no Jew that is not holy to accepted of God therefore not onely is the insinuation against the Parliament men false but if it were true the Army hath no authority to pronounce them so so nor to deale with them as such Is not the Parliament the Supreame Iudicature against which lies no writ of errour or appeale but to God So it stands good that their act was against their Oath But secondly he saith That if such a number of men be a Parliament p. 28 though dead to trust c. he knowes no priviledge of Parliament due to them no more then a dread man hath the priviledges of a man and this he sets off with many flourishes wherein he keepes this old artifice to play upon a plausible string to please his party that agree with him in the supposition that those Parliament men are dead to trust whereas that supposition is apparantly false and scandalous But his flourishes are but Sophisticall neither for a dead thing hath no priviledge as it is dead but if it be dead in one selfe and alive in another it may have priviledge in one selfe 〈…〉 have none in another as the carnall seed of Abraham 〈…〉 â—ewes to men and so had their outward priviledges but not so reputed of God and so had no spirituall priviledges so a degenerate Parliament is dead indeed to God who is above it to judge it it hath no honour with nor shall have any reward from God But it is not dead to men so far as to resist it for they have no authority to judge it or resist it but it is only so far dead to private men that they are not to give life to the dead acts of it If the Army had said the Parliament is dead we will not uphold it in dead wayes the charge being true it had beene noble to have laid downe their Commission and not have supported them but to resist was out of their sphere Let me aske this man what he would have said of Saul when the spirit of the Lord departed from him and an evill spirit seized on him 1 Sam. 16.14 Was he dead to trust or no And yet you see David was as observant and tender of him as though he had beene good aswell as great These distinctions therefore be fig-leaves and truly I thinke such delusions that men otherwais quicksighted use to be left to for their want of integrity to truth Sect. 2. But Master Goodwin adds that though the Army had stood p 29. â—0 31 bound to the priviledges of Parliament yet they stood bound also to maintain the liberties of the Kingdom against all impediments whatsoever and what they are not able themselves to suppresse c. And the liberties of the Kingdom he endeavours to prove to be greater then of the Parliament and in opposition of lawes or priviledges he greater is to take place c. But first here is supposed a Bull that the liberties of a people and a Parliament of the same people may be inconsistent whereas it can be no true priviledge on the one side but pretended if they push oue another Secondly he must remember the limitation in the Covenant that every one is to act in the performance of it according to their callings that is not onely the Souldier as a Souldier the Minister as a Minister but the private man as a private man so that a private man is not to act in a juridicall way by vertue of his Covenant but according to Law or Commission from men in authority and therefore the Covenant bound not them in reference to the Kingdom to act juridically in committing the Parliament men Again though the liberties of the Kingdom be in some sence more then the liberties of the Parliament yet the priviledges of Parliament are first put and the bond of it takes hold there therefore by what is spoken afterwards the true priviledges of Parliament cannot be prejudic'd And indeed there is nothing wherein the priviledges of the Kingdom are more concerned then in the liberties of the Parliament And there is greater probability of the land being watered with blood by the way
once served their turnes to comply with the King against the minds of the Parliament and now to imprison Parliament men and to threaten the destruction of the King and who knowes what designe it may carry on next And is not this course a means to irritate an opposite party and who knowes where God may cast strength and then what a gallant plea is here for them Quâ—dlibet audendi adventuring upon any thing Sect. 4. Lastly he argues 37. that if that action of the Army is not disproveable by any likelihood of evill that it may bring upon this Kingdom hereafter no more then preservation of a man from imminent death is reproveable because by it he is occasionally exposed to dye another time There were something in this if there were any iminency of death over our Nation but this is denied upon better grounds then they can give to the contrary and that by those that are the legall judges of it which the Army was not You adde they who conceive the Army had better have sate still for feare of after disturbance plead as if a man shall counsell a friend dangerously sick not to use a Physician because if he do recover his recovery might prove an occasion of more sicknesse afterwards But this answer hath wit without reason for first it presupposeth that to bee sicknesse of the Common-wealth which indeed was good Physick for her recovery And secondly to make the similitude hit the Physick that is disswaded must be to have an influence by the hazardous cure of one malady to have procured more And truely I should not think him mad but wise that should disswade such Physick nor is the example of Hezekiah any better that he was to be thankefull for his recovery though hee were to dye fifteene yeares after For first it runs upon the former false supposition And secondly that which recovered Hezekiah was not the cause of his death afterwards But here it is objected against the medicine that hee saith revives that it will have an influence to kill afterwards Nay after a pretended cure that medicine which he saith revives is not like to preserve long not fifteene yeares nor fifteene moneths for where there is one in the Kingdom that accounts this act of the Army medicine it 's conceived there be an hundred that count it a cup of poyson and so to be broken And what a Paroxysme this is like to beget shortly in this poor Kingdom let the prudent Reader judge CHAP. VI. Sect. 1. Master Goodwin proceeds to a sixth Objection counted hee saith by some impregnable It is taken from Rom. 13.1.2 Let every soule be subject to the higher powers for the powers that be are ordained of God He therefore that resisteth the powers resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation And this I doubt not will yeild an Argument too hard for Master Goodwin to answer or else sure all Protestant Divines have been much mistaken It may be formed thus VVHosoever resisteth the higher powers resists the Ordinance of God and receive to himself damnation The Army in secluding and imprisoning Parliament men did resist the higher powers therefore thereby they did resist the Ordinance of God and receive to themselves damnation For the minor Master Goodwin will not deny but the Parliament are higher powers to which the Army are to be subject This he saith he hath considered in the second objection yet because he would give surplusage in such urguments as pretend to Scripture he will take it in hand againe let us see whether he can acquit himselfe better then he did before And first he presents us with a distanction betweene the power and the abuse of the power the abuse of the power is not of God pag. 38. and so the resistance of that not forbidden nor damnable Now that the Army did only resist the abuse of the power he saith he hath proved in his book And I reply that it hath been as often disproved in my Answer Again this distinction between the powers and abuse of powers is to be taken with caution or else it may deceive Mr Burroughs his distinction in his Lord of Hoasts page 32. contains better divinity which is between the commands of abused anthority and the commands that are from the wills of men in authority That is abused authority when those to whom power of making lawes doth belong shall make evill lawes in this case there is no help but passive obedience or flight untill some way bee taken to rectifie the authority that is abused that is disannulling those evill lawes but when men that are in authority command any thing out of their wils c. So that in his judgement abuse of authority being legall is to be borne with patience not resisted by violence And indeed if we consider that these powers were in St. Pauls times Heathens and how bloudy their lawes were against Christians and how impious they were in many other things one might judge it had been sitter after Master Goodwins light to have taught them his new doctrine of resistance rather then to have prest subjection on them Magistracy is the Ordinance of God the lawes of the land the rule of it while it keepes within that sphere though the lawes be corrupt the Magistrate is no tyrant so he is a power ordained of God and we are to be subject in obeying or suffering but may not resist Sect. He adds pag. 35. it is manifest that they did not resist Parliamentary power because this power remaines quiet and indisturbed but is he in good earnest Is not Parliamentary power a power represence of the whole Nation Doth it remayn undisturbed when so great a part are secluded and so many thereupon think it unlawfull for them to handle the affaires of the Nation without the concurrence of their fellow Trustees that as they say ordinarily searce a sixth part of that number that ought to sit meet in the House Secondly he sayth that they have care to settle Parliamentary power on better tearms Yes by their new Modell What disturbers of present Governance were over found without that pretence but how few if ever any effected it He objects against himself That the Parliamentary pawer is under force now He answers That they are no more under force now then they were before the Army secluded the Members I answer Why is that which hee cals Parliamentary power free from force now but because they act after the Armies misguided fancy but should they crosse them in their Idoll Designe doth Mr Iohn Goodwin think they would be more exempt from * One Parliament man told me that as he was comming from the House the day after the seizing one of the Souldiers cryed roome roome another said knock him down so he never came there since Was not hee forced a way And are not many mâ—â—â— not of their principles kept away in like manner